For what it's worth if kyle is black the verdict would have been different. Ditto if he's asian, korean, or any other non white
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
Hardly surprising. The dude is fanatical and pretty well trained he's probably checked his 4 corner and knows his right well.
His discipline and tactical abilities while on the ground is admirable and would make most police forces pale in comparison.
The lesson of the story is that if you see a guy armed with ar15. Dont be a hero and assault him. If you're not happy and feel provoked walk away, if he starts verbal abuse or threats, call the cops.
His discipline and tactical abilities while on the ground is admirable and would make most police forces pale in comparison.
The lesson of the story is that if you see a guy armed with ar15. Dont be a hero and assault him. If you're not happy and feel provoked walk away, if he starts verbal abuse or threats, call the cops.
We already have protest groups coming out here tonight. And the overtime begins.
Yes, our society, especially the younger members, read too much reddit and know too few who had lived their lives in actual dictatorship. Bashing the US and talking in hyperboles only in these regards is extremely popular, somehow. Everybody knows the US have many issues, but comparing the US with the WR is irrational at best, especially considering he was talking about the early 1930s, not just the WR (most likely meaning the rise of the NSDAP as well) in general.
Funny enough, from my own POV, it seems like this trial‘s outcome shows the opposite of a biased judicial system, regardless of the masses personal opinion. By law, this seems proper. But unpopular.
So... Do you play Leisure Suit Larry?@AllGoodNamesRGone was just looking for posts about my bum and boobs but it can be used for other research.
You and your mate's posts bother me.
By the by the Judge's instructions not to call the victims, 'victims' appears biased and yes, very reminiscent of (mentioning Godwin's Law next for the faint hearted) 1930s and 40s Germany. There's vibes there alright.
Do we have the data to back this up? Are there really more people who think Kyle should have been punished than those who think he did nothing wrong?
This is all just too fu**** up. Thankfully American gun culture is one disease that won't infect the world. Even most developing countries have very sensible laws around that.
Last edited:
Judging by the media and the internet, so that's basically an assumption made by me, correct. I don't have any data but yet I think under Biden and with the general (necessary) outrage caused by the death of George Floyd, I assumed this is a rather unpopular opinion amongst most people (in the US especially).
I don't live there, so it's not possible for me to really know the feeling on the ground but I'd be interested to know if this really is an unpopular decision, and we can be at least be sure that this will be very popular with certain sections of the country. The talks of this guy joining politics aren't far fetched.
Well, I'm sorry for bothering you and I meant no offense by posting what I posted. My understanding of the anglo-american legal (judicial) system is not as deep as I would like it to be (it's extremely different from german law, so I can't focus on both systems), so I can not tell you whether calling the possible offenders "victims" or not is proper or not. As far as I can tell, not calling the persons who were shot "victims" leads to neutrality and prevails necessary objectivity, as the word "victim" directly implies not only being someone who is injured, but someone who is wrongfully injured/damaged. So, my assumption is, that the judge didn't want language lead to any kind of bias. But someone please enlighten me, as I am talking out of my arse right now.
Yes, I'd like to know about this as well. In any case and all things considered, I still think the outcome is - judging by law - the correct one.
Regarding Rittenhouse's future, I've read that he has already been instrumentalized and as he seems to be right-oriented I have to agree that it's very possible he could become a political figure of whatever kind. He won't go into serious politics, I'd say, as I deem him to be too young for that. But becoming some kind of side figure/symbol for the right, I think that's already happened.
It really is. 17 year-olds running round the streets with assault rifles. It grows more and more ridiculous with every passing year
Looks like the fight over the fundraised money is going to get ugly.
The previous MAGA lawyers who used it as a political case to raise the bail money are trying to get the bail money back for themselves.
The previous MAGA lawyers who used it as a political case to raise the bail money are trying to get the bail money back for themselves.
I wouldn't be surprised if he comes after Biden. Didn't he call him a murderer or something? Not he's been found guilty surely Biden has opened himself up to one?I think they've started looking into it but nothing against KR (yet). I also read that KR may be taking civil action against people for defamation...
This trial didn't necessarily make me thing about a democracy under threat (though the judge having a MAGA rally ringtone certainly raised my eyebrows), but the Weimar comparison is something that I've seen before and I wonder whether you think the bolded part also applies to these historians:
e.g. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/06/weimars-lessons-for-bidens-america/
https://www.shankerinstitute.org/bl...nd-fracturing-americas-constitutional-order-0
In the immediate build up to this, had he not just put out a fire and was about to put out another one or is that lies I've read online?
You meant no offense? You and your mate set out to belittle @Hansi Fick by determining that his generation read too much Reddit, talked in Hyperbole etc etc. That's the sort of post, making up stuff about another poster which you actually have no knowledge of that bothers me. Then you apologise and try to justify your post. Not so much an apology.
The judge in my view did what the Nazis did, exactly what other groups do to their victims and that is to de-humanise them, painting them as criminals. Is that his decision to make or the jury's?
If you want to wreck someone and walk free just make sure to provoke them into coming at you first.
Did you watch any of the case? It’s all on YouTube - really interesting.
Minnesota has no 3rd degree statute. These are reasons why there is so much miss information everywhere. All of the possible things Kyle could have been charged with, he was charged with.
Wisconsin has
First-degree intentional homicide
first-degree reckless homicide
felony murder
Abortion.
Second-degree intentional homicide
Second-degree reckless homicide.
Chapter 940.
Second degree doesn't even apply because according to everyone on the left Kyle went to the protest with the intent to kill someone. If you're of the mind that he's lying that he went to be helpful and. And lying that only brought gun for personal safety then your only avenue in Wisconsin is first Degree homicide. If you're convinced that Kyle went there with the soul purpose to murder protesters and his whole story of self defense is him lying out of his teeth then I don't understand how you go about changing anything other than first Degree when you go through the list of statues available to you in Wisconsin.
I think there's a different in these extremes. That would be taken as stirring shit up.
Kyle at least could stand behind the "he was there to help and took the gun for protection" argument.
I also don't think someone Dressing up in kkk outfit in a black neighbourhood would have much of a self defense case either which is another extreme example used.
Exactly, it wasn't an apology for what I said, but for what someone might have felt. I also didn't explicitly say that he was one of those I mentioned, but I was talking about (internet) society in general.
I can not tell you whose decision that is, I'd say noone should ever de-humanise anybody in court, honestly. So, all things considered, I get where you're coming from, but I don't see any dehumanization by not calling someone "victim" under the given circumstances. As far as I can tell, said persons were potential offenders, not victims, which is why a more neutral language seems appropriate to me.
Good grief, you and your mate were targeting one poster in particular and yet your comments were about no one in particular.
Maybe in your country you can label offenders by what they could potentially do, personally I think you wait until the verdict is in to decide who is or was what. Maybe it comes easier to you. The judge might as well have directed the jury to return a Not Guilty verdict.
It's common for all judges to ban the term victim be used by procecutors as obviously it implies that a crime was committed and that's factual.
You can obviously compare anything to anything if you like to and you might even find parallels, but this does not mean it's necessarily a good comparison. I stand by what I say. From what I've experienced in the US, from what I've studied during school and law school (actual WR/nazi verdicts), I do not think that this trial can be used to find a relevant connection between the WR and the current US.
Regarding your links, I have to say, interesting read. Yet not much I'd see as legitimately appliccable. " Accepting the logic of this new presidential system will put a definitive end to American democracy. If Trump is allowed to gain re-election by the same anti-democratic mechanism, under unfair conditions, and with illegal foreign support, it will not be possible to keep the constitutional order intact in a recognizable form."
Yea, that didn't happen. I also think that learning WR's lesson and rightfully talking about WR like events/states is something completely different. I still consider these statements hyperbolic.
I genuinely don't understand your last paragraph, as I feel like this is exactly what the judge did. Not jump to conclusions by labeling someone a victim before knowing, as this terminology means not being the offender.
yeah, so basically what I expected, right? Yet some here are using neutral terminology as a sign of bias...which merely shows their own.
And again, this is why in neutral terms you do not call them looters, arsonists, criminals (...rats). You say it is okay to label them under these terms because they 'potentially' were, and then you claim a neutrality! Bizarre.
I think you should take a bit of time to re-read your posts if you can't understand my last paragraph, it is specifically discussing what you have said.
The early 1930s vibes I'm getting (and yes, the use of "vibe" is not meant to be forceful, water-proof historiographical thesis @owlo which might have been noticeable in that I also coupled it with the expressed a feeling, that of being depressed..) is obviously not just down to what's going on in the US.
The loud re-emergence of people like you two AfD drones are an example of why I'm getting them, too. It's probably in actuality more because of you that I'm feeling depressed, not because of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial..
There's not need to project onto the US, that I concede.
Last edited:
calling them victims isn't neutral either, right?
I think there's some kind of misunderstanding here, honestly. Otherwise I'd advise you to reread my posts.
America is fecked
"AfD drones"
You genuinely don't have a clue about what and with whom you're talking...the way you react here simply shows incredible ignorance.
Just for the record, I don't know any "AfD drone" personally, let alone someone who studied law.
Edit: Regarding the WR comparisons, I have to say, expressing your feelings here is fine, but that connection between these still is hyperbolic. If we're talking about feelings here, I feel like people like you simply like hyperbolic statements because it feels more rewarding to live in "important and unsettling times" and to be part of major events than just every day life, as this seems to give your own situation more meaning from your pov.
Sometimes, some things simply aren't as major and big on a world history scale. This verdict isn't either.
Last edited:
The defence were required to have foundation in the record to call people rioters, arsonists etc.
There is also limited prejudice caused given they were not on trial.
Also the prosecution would be allowed to use evocative terms in closing if the evidence had foundation. The example used was 'cold blooded killer'.
The judge simply holds a view that its for the jury to determine if they were victims
Yeah, definitely you misunderstanding the terms of Neutrality and Bias. Maybe it's a country thing. We call all who die by violent means 'victims' and not what they might have potentially been.
Hardly because of this.
But the judge directed that they should be referred to as Arsonists and Looters. He did not specify that any foundation be needed.
This was also said in this thread:
Not sure if it's a country thing and how the typical practice in the US/UK is in these regards, but it seems like "victim" isn't a neutral word at all and that's why it shouldn't be used lightly in court by prosecutors.
It's like talking to a brick wall. If you cannot call them victims because it implies bias then why can you call them Rioters, Looters and Arsonists instead? And please, please don't say again because they 'Potentially' were. Good God man, it's not difficult.
That's not what was said at the pre trial hearing, unless I'm mistaken.
It was very much a could but based on evidence that was included in the exhibits.